After thought of Boeing X-32 JSF

[Mikestro]

After reading about all the setbacks, cost increases, and problems accosiated with the JSF I would like to propose a couples of Questions?

1. Did the pentagon make a mistake selecting the LM F-35 over the Boeing x-32?

Some say the largest factor in the decision process was the opinion that the x-32 was ugly. My impression was Boeing was using more risky technology (more advanced and less proven) then the project presented by LM. And in regard to the problems facing the JSF would these have also have surfaced in the Boeing x-32 regardless, as some of these problems are inherent to the process ie, 3 different major variants of 1 airframe, and multinational considerations. And was LM chosen solely due to its f-22 work?

2. Secondly with the need of a new US bomber some have speculated a FB-22 variant of the F-22. However, after having a more indepth look at the x-32 I wonder if the x-32 could be a redesigned into a new bomber design. In my opinion it looks more like a bomber then a multi-role fighter.

 

[Big-E]

I'm glad the flying bathtub lost the contest. It's STOVL takeoff performance was terrible. The backdraft into the engines made it overheat and weakened thrust. The fact that it was ugly is just a coincidence. Most of Boeings technology learned from the X-32 went into the Super Bug so I wouldn't say it was more advanced, the F-35 is superior to the Bug in many ways.

 

[Todjaeger]

After reading about all the setbacks, cost increases, and problems accosiated with the JSF I would like to propose a couples of Questions?

1. Did the pentagon make a mistake selecting the LM F-35 over the Boeing x-32?

Some say the largest factor in the decision process was the opinion that the x-32 was ugly. My impression was Boeing was using more risky technology (more advanced and less proven) then the project presented by LM. And in regard to the problems facing the JSF would these have also have surfaced in the Boeing x-32 regardless, as some of these problems are inherent to the process ie, 3 different major variants of 1 airframe, and multinational considerations. And was LM chosen solely due to its f-22 work?

2. Secondly with the need of a new US bomber some have speculated a FB-22 variant of the F-22. However, after having a more indepth look at the x-32 I wonder if the x-32 could be a redesigned into a new bomber design. In my opinion it looks more like a bomber then a multi-role fighter.

I would need to do more research for #1 on the reasoning behind the LM selection. I personally don't think it was because LM was also selected for the F-22, because IIRC there was concern that selecting both new fighters from LM would effectively make LM the only fighter aircraft company in the US. At least with regard to future orders once the Super Hornet starts being replaced.

As for #2, I don't see the X-32 (or F-32 if you prefer) as meeting the requirements of the bomber. From what I understand the air force to be looking for, they are looking for a stealthy, fast mid-range strike bomber. Basically a modern aircraft with the capabilities that the F-111 had. The X-32, as far as I know, doesn't meet the desire range, speed or payload capacity. By way of example the F-111C (still in RAAF service) has a strike range of approx. 1,500 miles with a payload of approx. 30,000 lbs of bombs and a max speed of approx. Mach 2.

-Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

The X-35 design was far superior in terms of STOVL performance.

The ducted fan provides a solid shield against the exhaust entering the intake.

The X-35 ducted fan design also provides the thrust/lift levels as if the engine with an extremely high bypass design. The ducted fan provides the extra intake surface area required for Vertical flight. As the ducted fan is located towards the front of fuselage the engine can actually be placed quite far back. This allows for increased fuel capacity with the conventional versions that dont have the ducted fan.

The X-32 needed massive front air intakes to provide enough airflow into the engine at slow speeds. The X-32 also had to use a much larger diameter engine to provide the dry thrust levels needed. The X-32 engine had to be placed towards the front of the aircraft to keep the centre of gravity for hovering. The total amount of lift was also much less, so the X-32 had to be lighter and smaller if it had any chance of reaching the performance levels of the X-35 design.

The F-35 ducted design will revolutionize VTOL flight. I personally cant wait until the F-35B starts to fly. I can see that the transition from hovering to forward flight being done extremely quick. As more than half of the lift is provided by the ducted fan, the pilot could quickly swivel the exhaust nozzle to the normal position. This would cause a reduction in lift at the rear of the aircraft and cause the plane to pitch upwards say 20 degree's. The pilot could then engage the afterburner and as the aircraft is pitching up 20 degree's the thrust is directed slightly downward. Within a few seconds the aircraft would reach a horizontal speed where the wings would start to take over. The ducted fan then shuts off and the F-35 accelerated away at full burner.

Even though the F-35 is overweight it will be able to transition to horizontal flight in a fraction of the time of a Harrier. Also slow takeoff performance will be excellent as the aircraft can take off with the ducted fan running and full afterburner. The ducted fan helps lift the nose off the ground much sooner than normal.

With the harrier design if they have the engines pointing 45 degrees downwards, then the aircraft can take off at a lower speed. However as the engines aren't pointing directly back they loose acceleration power. So even though the aircraft may take off at half the speed, if it takes twice as long to reach that speed it kind of defeats the purpose.

With the F-35 ducted design unlike the harrier, they have full accelaration provided by the exhaust pointing straight back at max afterburner. They also have lift from ducted fan which reduces the takeoff speed. So not only is the speed required to lift off the ground reduced but the time it takes to reach that speed is reduced as well.

We could possibly see fully loaded F-35's taking off in less than 500 feet while lifting off the ground at a slow 80 knots.

Even thought the F-35 is overweight, VTOL performance will only be slightly reduced.

Also with your second point. The F-32 is very small, a little over 15 metres long and a 10 metre wing span. The shape of the original delta wing design provides an excellent fuel fraction for the size of the aircraft. A spherical shape has the biggest internal volume for any given surface area, so you can see how a chunky looking aircraft will have big fuel capabity. If the X-32 design was "scaled up" to the external dimensions of the F-22 it would have nearly twice the internal fuel. So it would make a good regional bomber. However it would be costly and probably would be easier just to modify the F-22 design.

With the F-22 design you cant change the sweep of the wing without re-designing the entire aircraft. So if you made the F-22 a delta wing design using the same sweep angle the wings would be HUGE!!! That would provide 50% internal fuel and a range long enough to be a regional bomber.

If they then lengthened the F-22 to have two bomb bays, the wing would be even bigger and internal fuel would be well over 20,000kilo's. Range would be greater than an F-111. The current F-22 can carry two 1,000lb JDAMs with 2 AMRAAM on the sides of the JDAMs and 2 sidewinder in the side bays. With two bombays the FB-22 could carry four 1,000lb JDAMS. Eight SDB on the sides of the JDAMs and Two AMRAAM missile in lengthened side bays.

Even if they kept the original F-119 engines the thrust to weight ratio would still be very good, and it could still supercruise.

The FB-22 will never exist. There is no money for it. The next bomber will be definitely be unmanned. It will have the performance and range of a B-2 that it will replace however it will be much smaller in size, probably around the size of an F-111.

 

[rjmaz1]

By way of example the F-111C (still in RAAF service) has a strike range of approx. 1,500 miles with a payload of approx. 30,000 lbs of bombs and a max speed of approx. Mach 2.

People always make the F-111 out to being something special.

1500miles combat radious, while carrying 30,000lbs while flying Mach 2 the whole way. We can only wish.

The F-111 on a standard hi-lo-lo-hi with four 2,000lb LGB's has a combat of only 600 miles. So it has no chance of hitting Jakarta without inflight refueling. Sure you can sit on cruise control at 30,000 feet conserving fuel but then you'll get shot down.

The JSF will however be able to cruise in at medium altitude and subsonic speed, due to its stealth and the ability to defend itself. So its combat radius will be nearly the same as the F-111. Then if the JSF needs to refuel it only requires half as much fuel from the tanker compared to the F-111 so its actually a good replacement.

 

[LancerMc]

It is very true the STOVL X-32 showed major short comings in the competition and the X-35 performed much better. In many ways the X-32 was much easier to produce then the X-35. The X-35 used extremely complicated and detailed titanium milling work for major portions of the aircraft, and the X-32 used new composite materials and production methods. The composite production methods proved 75% more cost effective then initially thought of, but it was still a unproven technology.

When Secretary Roche announced the winner, he stated they he hoped the all participants would work together to make the best fighter possible. I think Lockheed Martin could have used some of those X-32 production technologies in helping in the construction the F-35, but we sure haven't been seeing any of that on the F-35.

The technology from the X-32 has allowed Boeing to develop the most advance UCAV’s that sadly will one day replace most manned fighter and attack aircraft. Also an area the Lockheed Martin has shown little interest in developing until recently.

If the X-32 had more time could have it been proven to be as good or better then the F-35; yeah sure, but in the end Lockheed should have asked for Boeing's help in producing quicker, cheaper, and better F-35.

 

[Todjaeger]

People always make the F-111 out to being something special.

1500miles combat radious, while carrying 30,000lbs while flying Mach 2 the whole way. We can only wish.

The F-111 on a standard hi-lo-lo-hi with four 2,000lb LGB's has a combat of only 600 miles. So it has no chance of hitting Jakarta without inflight refueling. Sure you can sit on cruise control at 30,000 feet conserving fuel but then you'll get shot down.

The JSF will however be able to cruise in at medium altitude and subsonic speed, due to its stealth and the ability to defend itself. So its combat radius will be nearly the same as the F-111. Then if the JSF needs to refuel it only requires half as much fuel from the tanker compared to the F-111 so its actually a good replacement.

In many respects, the F-111 is something special. It is the only aircraft of it's size that has that combination of range, potential speed and payload. A combination the USAF found very useful in GWI, right before the F-111 was retired by the US.

Something the USAF found... missing... During GWII and Afghanistan was the operational options the F-111 had provided them before being retired. Granted other aircraft in the USAF inventory were tasked to cover the needed roles but the USAF found that inefficient in some ways. For instance, some of the strategic strike missions were accomplished by SAC aircraft like the B-1,B-2 & B-52 operating in many cases from AFBs located in the continental US. Due to security & operational considerations, many of these type aircraft don't operate from foreign bases. With a smaller, mid-range bomber, the USAF could have conducted some of those same strikes from bases already in the area. This would have drastically reduced transit time and therefore fuel cost (not insignificant given the distances covered) and also allowed much more frequent sorties with the same number of aircraft. It was this realization by the USAF, that they had allowed their forces to become either very long range or short ranged, and it's impact on air operations, the caused the USAF to start looking into developing a new mid-range, fast strike aircraft. Something that would be stealthy, but with longer range and larger payload that the JSF is expected to have that would most likely be used just as a mid-range medium bomber.

-Cheers

 

[icelord]

F-111 is still going, and from all accounts by RAAF pilots, its goes well. These days its being outdated, but back in the day. You can look at it as nothing now, but 80s and 90s, this bird burned the sky:tasty . If they were really missing the F-111 in GW2, all they had to do was ask the RAAF. I recall they were last used on deployment in East Timor for RAAF, anyone help here on feedback?

 

[altbob]

The X-35 design was far superior in terms of STOVL performance..

One lingering question I have after comparing the x-32b to the x-35b is the combat survivability of the very complex ducted fan system of the x-35 vs. the relatively simple, almost passive system of the x-32b. With all the moving parts that the x-35b seems to require, it seems as if far more can go wrong, even from smal arms fire, which is not inconceivable that such a plane may encounter in close support air to ground operations of the type Marine tactics may involve.

Does anyone know if this factor was even considered?

 

[StingrayOZ]

F-111 is still going, and from all accounts by RAAF pilots, its goes well. These days its being outdated, but back in the day. You can look at it as nothing now, but 80s and 90s, this bird burned the sky:tasty . If they were really missing the F-111 in GW2, all they had to do was ask the RAAF. I recall they were last used on deployment in East Timor for RAAF, anyone help here on feedback?

F-111 was requested for GW2. However, Australia declined the request. I belive we have always declined requests for our F-111's.

I can't find a link, but I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Something about being too strategic to go around playing in sand pits.

 

[fretburner]

One lingering question I have after comparing the x-32b to the x-35b is the combat survivability of the very complex ducted fan system of the x-35 vs. the relatively simple, almost passive system of the x-32b. With all the moving parts that the x-35b seems to require, it seems as if far more can go wrong, even from smal arms fire, which is not inconceivable that such a plane may encounter in close support air to ground operations of the type Marine tactics may involve.

Does anyone know if this factor was even considered?

I read somewhere before that the STOVL was really the clincher in the contest.

Boeing went for a design based on the Harrier, while LM went an entirely different path. It was new and risky, but the customer thought LM has got what it takes to make it work. The number of moving parts was also part of the argument, but I think LM have reduced the number of moving parts since the technology demonstrator.

But as with the other guys here, I think LM should have asked for Boeing's help. Although, I'm not sure how that would work for this supposedly "winner take all" contest.

Too bad Boeing will probably stop making new fighter jets. Although it won't be too bad if the F-35 really will become the last manned fighter, since they've had the X-45 for quite a while now, and even had those flying in formation and attacking different targets. I don't get though why Grumman got the Navy UCAV thingy.

 

[altbob]

I read somewhere before that the STOVL was really the clincher in the contest.

Boeing went for a design based on the Harrier, while LM went an entirely different path. It was new and risky, but the customer thought LM has got what it takes to make it work. The number of moving parts was also part of the argument, but I think LM have reduced the number of moving parts since the technology demonstrator.

Well, Boeing didn't exactly reinvent the Harrier, although going with something tried and true (and combat tested!) isn't really a bad thing. There were some incremental improvements in the x-32 as well. In the testing the only problem the x-32 experienced with hover was ironically caused by the vent-pit (I forget the technical name) that the airplane was hovering over, ironically as a safety measure.

On the other hand, when I saw the complexity necessary to make the x-35 hover the very first thing that wet through my mind was 'one stray bullet is all it would take to mess that whole system up." I haven't heard anything about the system being modified. To keep it aerodynamic in supersonic flight there is only so much you can do. That blower fan has to be covered at the top and bottom, and the jet nozzle has to be able to articulate downwards, and that turbine shaft to the forward fan...I wouldn't want to be the engineer who had to ensure that thing remained perfectly aligned and doesn't cronically overheat.

Frankly, hover or no hover, I just don't see the JSF as being a useful ground attack ship. I assume it will never replace the A-10 for example. I just have to wonder how much discussion took place over the robustness of the LM design.

But as with the other guys here, I think LM should have asked for Boeing's help. Although, I'm not sure how that would work for this supposedly "winner take all" contest.

Well I have to disagree from a cost saving perspective - if after the contest they start cherry picking things they like from each airframe to build a hybrid of some sort you end up with a plane with a whole set of new teething problems and lots more expense to iron it all out. You also need to mix the design teams together and all sorts of corporate culture politics ends up slowing things down, not to mention turf wars, etc. Just pick a plane and go with it. Sad that the x-32b didn't get to really show off it's stuff with the redesigned wings (and I was pulling for the Pellican tail too!) Talk about "new and risky" yeah, but the x-32 really was a 21st century design.

Ugly perhaps, but I must say that the x-32's intake looked pretty ripe for a shark mouth paint job ala the P-40! Which raised the question in my mind, wold that have been against the rules? I'd heard that Northrop had to delete the red hour-glass (Black Widow) insignia from the YF-23. Can anyone shed any light on that?

 

[GI-Gizmo]

The JSF program seems to of gone from prototype to production fast
compared to other modern fighter evolutions . I remember it was not
that long ago that the first real pics of the X-32 and X-35 were released,
after years of CGI and artists concepts. I think JSF started in 1993, but
it still seems like a quick process now that the F-35 AA-1 production
model is already here and basing is being assigned. If it does enter
service in 2013?, then 20yrs went by very fast. It is still hard to imagine
any aircraft taking over the CAS role that the A-10 has owned for so long,
I wish new warthogs could be produced. The A-10C hopefully will be around for a long time to come, and with 370~? still in service they should. I know
that one day in the future when the hog is gone, the guys on the ground
are gonna yearn for something like it to call on. Nothing puts fear into the
enemy like the roar of that 30mm spitting. Although, obviously it depends who the enemy in the future is, if they are well armed with modern air defense systems 10-20yrs from now, then the A-10 might not be as powerful a player as it is today against. -- Whats with all the F-111
talk on here? Doesn't the F-15E have a good strike capability? I like the F-111, but it had its time. Variable-swept winged aircraft require alot of
maintnence due to the complexity of their sweeping wings. Having the
pilot/co-pilot left-to-right and not front-to-back limits natural visibility which
retards dogfighting abilities. The F-15E is a great strike platform and
performs everything the Aardvark use to do and more.

 

[fretburner]

It is still hard to imagine
any aircraft taking over the CAS role that the A-10 has owned for so long,
I wish new warthogs could be produced. The A-10C hopefully will be around for a long time to come, and with 370~? still in service they should. I know
that one day in the future when the hog is gone, the guys on the ground
are gonna yearn for something like it to call on. Nothing puts fear into the
enemy like the roar of that 30mm spitting. Although, obviously it depends who the enemy in the future is, if they are well armed with modern air defense systems 10-20yrs from now, then the A-10 might not be as powerful a player as it is today against.

The F-35 uses a 30mm cannon instead of a 20mm right? I think they did this for the CAS role?

I don't think the F-35 would be able to take the kind of punishments these A-10's are taking, but if they can sneak up to the enemy and and they can't lock on their air defenses, then maybe the F-35 could play the CAS role at least "okay".

Though none of its stealth technology would ever help the F-35 with machine gun and small arms fire. And as complex as it is, a few 7.62 rounds could probably ruin it.

Maybe a true replacement for the A-10's would be Predator C's packed with Hellfires and SDB's that the Army and Marines on the ground can control themselves. Those would be harder to hit than F-35s.

Whats with all the F-111 talk on here? Doesn't the F-15E have a good strike capability? I like the F-111, but it had its time. Variable-swept winged aircraft require alot of maintnence due to the complexity of their sweeping wings. Having the pilot/co-pilot left-to-right and not front-to-back limits natural visibility which retards dogfighting abilities. The F-15E is a great strike platform and performs everything the Aardvark use to do and more.

I read somewhere that the F-15E was designed to fight its way in and unload its bombs, and then fight its way out (to do another sortie).

Not sure if this has ever happend, since the F-15C's would have probably swept the air before the Strike Eagles go in?

 

[altbob]

The JSF program seems to of gone from prototype to production fast
compared to other modern fighter evolutions . I remember it was not
that long ago that the first real pics of the X-32 and X-35 were released,
after years of CGI and artists concepts. I think JSF started in 1993, but
it still seems like a quick process now that the F-35 AA-1 production
model is already here and basing is being assigned.

Well that's the beauty of holding a winner takes all competition and keeping the design teams together and not going back and second guessing everything once a choice is made. This gets us much closer to the WWII airplane design model, where we had plenty of notable failed designs, but as a part of that process we cranked out the P-51, F4F, F5F, B-29, F4U (and the list goes on) all within the space of about 4 years on average. Astouding when compared to the lax standards of the 60's and 70's, but really, given today's CAD/CAM and computer simulation technologies there is very little excuse for not being able to duplicate the accomplishments of the late 30's and early to mid-40's.

It is still hard to imagine
any aircraft taking over the CAS role that the A-10 has owned for so long, I wish new warthogs could be produced.

Amen to that! Perhaps the thinking is that UCAV's will replace the A-10, or perhaps the Army is pulling for helecopters to do the job (?), but neither can replace the agile and robust tank killer in the sky. It seemed that the x-32b had some potential to be a robust machine for CAS, but the x-35 leaves me feeling nervous...maybe we can pick up some surplus Sturmoviks?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, Boeing didn't exactly reinvent the Harrier, although going with something tried and true (and combat tested!) isn't really a bad thing. There were some incremental improvements in the x-32 as well. In the testing the only problem the x-32 experienced with hover was ironically caused by the vent-pit (I forget the technical name) that the airplane was hovering over, ironically as a safety measure.

I think the critical element in the STOVL comparison was that the more complicated design actually worked, it proved far more reliable in the design phase.

On the other hand, when I saw the complexity necessary to make the x-35 hover the very first thing that wet through my mind was 'one stray bullet is all it would take to mess that whole system up."

Well one stray bullet will mess your whole engine up anyway, and considering the only critical mechanical elements of the lift system is the fan, gearbox and drive shaft I dont see that risk appreciating significantly.

I haven't heard anything about the system being modified. To keep it aerodynamic in supersonic flight there is only so much you can do. That blower fan has to be covered at the top and bottom, and the jet nozzle has to be able to articulate downwards, and that turbine shaft to the forward fan...I wouldn't want to be the engineer who had to ensure that thing remained perfectly aligned and doesn't cronically overheat.

The lift fan produces virtually no heat and the cold air from the fan reduces hot air coming into the engine. This means this system deals with heat better than the X-32's design. The cooling requirements would be virtually identicle to the F-35A.

The nozzle vector is relatively simple, its primarily made up of 3 moving parts. The complex part was the gear's and drive shaft.

Alignment? Any normal aircraft engine is more complex and requires extremely close alignment. I don't see a drive shaft, gearbox and fan being a massive challenge from that perspective.

Frankly, hover or no hover, I just don't see the JSF as being a useful ground attack ship. I assume it will never replace the A-10 for example. I just have to wonder how much discussion took place over the robustness of the LM design.

Why not? The F-16 is an excellent CAS platform. The sensors, information management tech and weapons of the F-35 bring it far more lethality than the F-16, and the Lightning will have the Warthog's loiter ability. The vast majority of CAS missions don't require a 30mm strafing run. In low intensity conflict you need precision to avoid collateral damage, and in high intensity conflict the A-10 simply isn't survivable in the modern battle-space. The F-35A will be a superior CAS platform in the majority of missions.

Ugly perhaps, but I must say that the x-32's intake looked pretty ripe for a shark mouth paint job ala the P-40! Which raised the question in my mind, wold that have been against the rules? I'd heard that Northrop had to delete the red hour-glass (Black Widow) insignia from the YF-23. Can anyone shed any light on that?

It was damn ugly. :mryuk

But more than its appearance, I have a hunch its frontal RCS would have been larger than the F-35. Because they went with a vectored thrust design the engine had to be up front (hence that big, ugly air intake), much like the AV-8. Hence you could actually see the turbines through the intake. Now I'm no expert on VLO, but I'm pretty sure one of the highest points of return in the frontal aspect of an aircraft are the engine faces and IIRC one of the F/A-18E/F's RCS reduction features were burying the engine faces behind S shaped intakes.

 

[moahunter]

Boeing went for a design based on the Harrier, while LM went an entirely different path. It was new and risky, but the customer thought LM has got what it takes to make it work. The number of moving parts was also part of the argument, but I think LM have reduced the number of moving parts since the technology demonstrator.

It wasn't new or risky - Lockheed purchased this technology from the Russians - it was used in the Yak 141.

I liked the Boeing better - if nothing else, I thought the greater range made it more useful. Regardless though, it is looking more and more like the F35 will be the last manned fighter / bomber, its shortcomings will likely be addressed by UAV's.

 

[Marc 1]

It wasn't new or risky - Lockheed purchased this technology from the Russians - it was used in the Yak 141.

I liked the Boeing better - if nothing else, I thought the greater range made it more useful. Regardless though, it is looking more and more like the F35 will be the last manned fighter / bomber, its shortcomings will likely be addressed by UAV's.

The Yak had two lift engines (2 x small turbojets) to support the forward part of the airframe, the F-35B uses a geared fan coupled to the main engine. This is where the risk was in the development, if I remember correctly, this is the most powerful tansmission or lift fan (one of the two) ever fielded. Apart from the basic idea of having a lifting source at the tail and one behind the cockpit they are totally different in execution. I very much doubt that LM purchased this idea from the Russians.

EDIT - Just did some more research, Moahunter is correct - LM tapped Yakelov's VTOL expertise, but the execution was very different to the Yak 141. This from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

The decision by Lockheed-Martin to provide additional funds to develop the Yak-141 was largely based on the pending competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Marine variant of the JSF was required to possess a VTOL capability to replace the Marine version of the AV-8B Harrier II VTOL fighter. Lockheed-Martin realized that Yakovlev OKB already possessed extensive experience with VTOL systems, and funding further development of the Yak-141 would give Lockheed-Martin access to Yakovlev's designs. It is doubtful that Lockheed-Martin ever planned to fund series production of the Yak-141, as such an aircraft would have served as a rival for their own F-35 on the international market, something Yakovlev was also likely aware of at the time. Despite this, both partners benefited, as Yakovlev's experience with VTOL development helped Lockheed-Martin secure the contract for production of the F-35 over its rival, the Boeing X-32, while Yakovlev received some urgently needed funds to continue development of other designs, including a new VTOL fighter, the Yakolev Yak-43.[citation needed]